There are no sacred cows on this list of popular games we just don't get.

Share this story

Everybody has at least one: a game that, for one reason or another, just never appealed to you despite its presence on the "best games of all time" list for many people. A game that you're almost ashamed to admit to hating in polite company, for fear that you'll be branded a gauche iconoclast (or, worse, an ignorant troll). A game that makes you question not just your tastes, but the concept of popular taste as a whole. I mean, what do people see in that game? This is an anthology of those games for some of Ars' editors.

We go into this list knowing that our picks are going to be baffling to some of you, and that we're in the extreme minority with most of these picks. That's kind of the point. Before you accuse us of just trying to "stir the pot" with intentionally subversive picks, know that the author of each of these blurbs truly and honestly just doesn't like the game being discussed. Also know that, no matter how popular a game or series is among the general public, we fully believe that every game has its flaws, and that there is no title that can (or should) be universally loved by literally everybody.

With that, let the slaughtering of the sacred cows begin!

Dragon's Lair

by Kyle Orland

I was too young to catch the whole Dragon's Lair craze in the '80s, but I distinctly remember the first time I saw the game sitting alone in a movie theater lobby sometime in the early '90s. My reaction can be divided into three distinct stages.

Stage 1 (After seeing the game's "attract mode" animation from across the lobby): Holy crap? What is... how do they get graphics like that? Is there a VCR under there? The whole game doesn't really look like that, does it? No... it can't. Can it?

Stage 2 (After putting in a dollar—A WHOLE DOLLAR—to try it out): Oh my god, the game does actually look like that! I'm actually going to get to control a real cartoon! This is so awesome!

Stage 3 (After making a total of one correct move before dying three times in succession): What the hell was that? That sucked!

Dragon's Lair seems to keep getting ported to new platforms in the decades since I first saw it had that arcade experience (most recently winning a coveted Steam Greenlight spot), so there must be some market of nostalgia-filled gamers whose opinions of the game probably gelled during Stage 1 and 2 above. And while I can appreciate the artistry of the animation, which still holds up today, I find the see-a-flash-and-hit-a-corresponding-button gameplay just truly, utterly, stupefyingly bad.

This isn't just sour grapes after one tough arcade play either... I spent a good deal of time struggling with a CD-ROM version years later just so I could see more of those wonderful, fluid, moving drawings. It didn't change my opinion one bit. As a short film (or even a choose-your-own adventure "interactive" movie), Dragon's Lair would be amazing. As a game, it's awful.

Gears of War

by Sean Gallagher

For Christmas in 2006, there were two things on my wish list: An Xbox 360 and Gears of War. I wasn't disappointed on Christmas morning—the disappointment wouldn't arrive until some time around New Year's.

There were some innovative things about Gears of War's combat engine (shoot from cover! OMG!), and it held up well in multiplayer. But the single-player campaign came nowhere near living up to the wave of hype that Gears of War rode in on. The plot was plodding and monotonous. The AI for "squad members" and the list of commands available to direct them made them more of a liability than an asset most of the time. And then there were the absurd mechanics of that chainsaw assault rifle.

Unfortunately, after the Xbox 360 etched a scratch into my first copy of the game, I actually had to buy a second before I figured out it probably wasn't even worth paying for once.

Halo

by Lee Hutchinson

Halo, how I dislike thee. A first-person shooter with few redeeming qualities, it's the kind of game that would have been released into obscurity had it not been a launch title for the original Xbox. The game sported mediocre graphics, a cliche-filled and unoriginal single-player campaign, and a tired and uninspiring set of multiplayer options. In spite of these detriments, its position as the only multiplayer first-person shooter available to Xbox users guaranteed its success. Apparently when you're dying of thirst in the desert, any drink will do, even if it's your own pee.

Halo's success is particularly cringe-worthy considering how ridiculously inferior it was to first-person shooters available on PC. Its contemporaries include classic AAA titles like Aliens vs. Predator 2, Ghost Recon, and Return to Castle Wolfenstein, all of which were vastly superior to Halo in every way but one: they weren't available to Xbox users clamoring for a way to frag their buddies.

The game spawned a plethora of (much better, actually fun) sequels and has legions of fans, but the first game in the series was just plain bad.

The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess

by Andrew Cunningham

I think it was Twilight Princess that ultimately prompted me to give up on modern Zelda games. From the outset, there was something about it that felt perfunctory. It was obviously trying very hard to build a deeper, story-driven game on top of Ocarina of Time's sturdy foundation. And while there were certainly moments of greatness strewn amidst TP's bloated, 30-something-hour running time, in the end it just felt like Zelda-by-the-numbers. Get your sword. Go to the dungeon. Find item (dah dah dah daaaaaah!). Beat dungeon and boss with item. Explore around until you finally find the next dungeon. Repeat.

Twilight Princess was really just the culmination of a long-running trend. Both Zelda and Mario, two of Nintendo's biggest flagships, are respectful of their roots to the point that they sometimes feel fenced in by their conventions. But Mario has taken what made the original games so fun—precision platforming, great level design, and pick-up-and-play gameplay—and pushed it to the fore. Newer games have even forgone the tiresome, empty hub worlds of Mario Sunshine and Super Mario Galaxy in favor of a format that puts as little time between turning on the console and playing a level as possible.

Zelda, on the other hand, has taken the best elements from the NES and SNES entries—puzzle solving, exploration, and swordplay, in roughly that order—and weighed them down with over-long tutorials, interminable cutscenes, and fetch quests that pad the games' running time without really adding much to the fun. Twilight Princess added insult to injury by replacing the precise button controls with gratuitous controller waggling (in the Wii version), making it by far my least favorite entry in the series (though, to be fair, I haven't even given Skyward Sword a chance after Twilight Princess scared me off the series).

I completely agree with Halo. I was knee-deep in the PC shooters of the time when that came out and all my console friends starting bragging about how great it was, but I never could get over the fact that it was a C game at best. It's fun sure, kind of like McDonalds fries taste good from time to time, and I own it just for the occasional "lets see where this started" moment. But it NEVER was an impressive shooter.

Even more galling was the fact that several of those Halo-obsessed friends of mine continued to insist for years that Half-Life was a generic Halo knockoff. Or that Halo was the first FPS to ever include vehicle combat. Or be set OUTSIDE.

Halo 2 was the first time I ever actually enjoyed a shooter, my wife and I played that on co-op mode until we had beaten it on every difficulty setting multiple times. That being said, we were just amazed at how boring we found Halo 3, which we managed to play through once, and Halo Reach, which we only managed to play for a couple of hours before deciding we'd rather be working.

Angry Birds. The original one. I get how accessible it is but I don't see why it's such a superstar. As a matter of fact I found its clones more fun to play. Angry Birds Space is a bit more interesting at times but when you're "inspired" by Mario Galaxy that's bound to happen.

Twilight Princess is wonderful, and underrated. People never wanted to admit that it could be better than or comparable to Ocarina and LttP. It takes familiar elements from other games, but brings them to another level. There's no other game I've played over and over again after beating and still enjoyed each time just as much.Skyward Sword however, may be the most overrated game of all time. Talk about banal, repetitive, unattractive and a pain to control

Really surprised that Dark Souls or whichever one that was stupidly hard wasn't on here. I've never understood why someone would play a game that seemed to hate the person playing it just as much as the player hated it.

I completely agree with Halo. I was knee-deep in the PC shooters of the time when that came out and all my console friends starting bragging about how great it was, but I never could get over the fact that it was a C game at best. It's fun sure, kind of like McDonalds fries taste good from time to time, and I own it just for the occasional "lets see where this started" moment. But it NEVER was an impressive shooter.

Even more galling was the fact that several of those Halo-obsessed friends of mine continued to insist for years that Half-Life was a generic Halo knockoff. Or that Halo was the first FPS to ever include vehicle combat. Or be set OUTSIDE.

The things we can convince ourselves of right?

I agree mostly, but I think it was the first FPS on consoles that got shooting right, weapon balance, control, aiming, and vehicle handling right in one package. It did a lot of things that FPSs had done before on PC, but it did everything right for the first time I can think of on a console. Oh, and the entire time Bungie was in control they had BY FAR the best multiplayer speed, reliability, matchmaking party system, and overall polish of any game I've ever played on any platform. Whoever it was that was in charge of that did it perfect from day one and it never faltered. That's an amazing achievement in itself. A counter example to that it Origin. That whole interface and it's reliability is utter shit. I hate, HATE Origin simply because it never works like it should. I've had so many instances where I wanted to chuck my MBP out the window because Origin failed 5-6 times in a row to join a BF3 match I can't even count them.

I played (and enjoyed) both the original Halo and Gears of War. But yes, I probably have to agree with the comments expressed. They aren't ALL that great. Certainly not as amazing as diehard fans seem to say. Twilight Princess is probably also in the same boat.

Enjoyed all three, but yeah, they're not the BEST EVAR!

-----

And +1 to the mention of Angry Birds. I want to like it, but it's just not that amazing since it seems to be more luck than skill. Shoot this bird at that tiny spot over and over, and hope that things fall the right way.

Really surprised that Dark Souls or whichever one that was stupidly hard wasn't on here. I've never understood why someone would play a game that seemed to hate the person playing it just as much as the player hated it.

Heh, I bought this from the bargain bin, and yes, had heard of the inhumane difficulty. Still decided it might be worth the effort. Played it for a half an hour I think. I think unless I start a meth habit I'll never touch it again.

I started college in 2002, and Halo was all over the dorms. The main thing I could never stand about it was how slow paced it felt compared to any PC game of the day. Going from QII/QIII/UT/Tribes to Halo felt like playing in slow motion. I can understand how it being a - I guess - decent console fps, but I couldn't help feeling confused at how great everyone thought it was.

Big agreement on Halo, long monotonous, and multiplayer was like playing quake at 10% speed.

I on the other hand really enjoyed Twilight Princess. On the wii the combat was fun, both regular and especially the boss battles. Not a game I'd repeat, but I did find every item/heart in the game before I won however.

I agree with all of them except meat boy, which is one of my favorite games. Playing it really felt like interacting with the level designer: "Oh, you're going to go that way? That might work.. NOPE, SAWBLADE." I found myself smiling a lot.

Your criticism is fair: it definitely lacks typical reward structure. There's no real progression or strengthening of your character, and level completion frequently feels more a result of training a muscle memory, rather than careful planning or skill development.

The destination won't likely do much for you, so you have to enjoy the trip. The art and music are great, and the cut scenes are fun.

If anyone reading this hasn't played it yet, try the demo! Also you need a gamepad.

Perhaps Ars staffers are too young to go back that far, or they assume the majority of their readers are too young (or both)? I'm only 39...

I had thought of that, though I'm 'only' 26, and have been gaming since I was 3. What's the entire staff of Ars Technica possible excuse? At the very least, the Gaming Editor had an actual game that was more than a decade old.

After that, most fights involved a couple of attempts, then my GM saying "OK, run this like $somePreviousBoss", we roflstomp it, and after a couple weeks we have the current end raid on farm. And we weren't even a hardcore guild; we raided to schedule, but people ran pretty much whatever talents they wanted, we had no real required raiding (you just sorta showed up when you wanted), and loot assignment often came down to two people arguing for the other to take it.

Heavy Rain. For a game that was supposed to be the future of movie-like interactive entertainment, it had the most embarrassingly awful and nonsensical story I've seen in a game. And the gameplay itself was pretty dreadful, in that it didn't feel so much like you were playing a game as pressing whatever button combination it told you to when it saw fit.

Also very surprised only one game was picked from before the year 2001. Seriously. In all of gaming, all the Ars staffers have only played from the original Xbox on? WTF?

Well, I did think about volunteering to write about Jupiter Lander or America's cup yachting (now there was a game to hate), but then I got dist

Seriously though, I'm not sure that I can come up with many older games that really fall into this category.

Most of the older games (at least the ones that people reinstall over and over) are typically pretty good. While they may not be a style of game that an individual likes, they're typically a good game and example of that style.

That's not as true for more current games. Halo is a great example. There are people that say Halo is the best FPS, but there's plenty of room for debate over that.

Perhaps Ars staffers are too young to go back that far, or they assume the majority of their readers are too young (or both)? I'm only 39...

I had thought of that, though I'm 'only' 26, and have been gaming since I was 3. What's the entire staff of Ars Technica possible excuse? At the very least, the Gaming Editor had an actual game that was more than a decade old.

I'm happy to post page after page of disses on popular games I don't like, on any system you'd care to name, going back to about 1984 when I got my first Atari system. I'm not sure how relevant my screed against Yar's Revenge would be, though, or my angry rantings against the IBM-compatible Temple of Apshai Trilogy.

The staff here has plenty of old-skool gaming cred and I'll throw down against anyone who wants to argue 80s and 90s video gaming anywhere, any time. You pick the time period, system, and genre, and I'll supply the vitriol. If you're gonna front, youngster, you better bring it.

I am sick and tired of people beating up on Halo. For story elements ALONE Halo beats the crap out of 95% of shooters. Lackluster graphics? BS. For the time they were great and... the physics alone were great. Also... it was more finely tuned and with less clipping errors and "cruft" from other shooters of the time. You guys just love beating up on Halo but it's one of the richest scifi plotlines out there. It may borrow from some things... but hell... movies borrow from other movies. Just because it borrows doesn't take away from the fact it's got tons of great original story elements. (And I do mean tons.) Halo is also one of the only games where the novels written about it are actually supplementary versus just being a bunch of "made up crap on the side." (Like the Tom Clancy game novels)

I find it funny you pick on Halo 1. It speaks to your ignorance of the game universe. It had the best story. Halo 4 is the first game in the series to get even close since. Halo 2's story was "ok" but Halo 3's was an unmitigated disaster. Anyone who thinks Halo 2 or 3's story was better than Halo 1 was just "late to the party" and now suffering from cognitive dissonance. Basically you can translate this as: "I wasn't impressed by Halo 1's graphics so I didn't play much of it. Later I'll say it was lacking in storyline to cover up for this fact." (Halo 2 was actually a response to you idiots. That's why it had all the texture pop-in because you screwballs are so graphics focused they tried to cram it all in.) By the time Halo 3 came about they figured out graphics is 95% of all anyone cares about so they threw the story out the window. (Thankfully 343 industries is fixing this now with Halo 4 and Spartan Ops..)

Admit it... your hatred of Halo comes from the fact it was bought by Microsoft as an xbox exclusive and you are all a bunch of bigots.

More than any of that I am getting really tired of these Op Ed meaningless puff pieces about "Hey you know that thing you like sucks right?" More news and less of that crap please.

I'm happy to post page after page of disses on popular games I don't like, on any system you'd care to name, going back to about 1984 when I got my first Atari system. I'm not sure how relevant my screed against Yar's Revenge would be, though, or my angry rantings against the IBM-compatible Temple of Apshai Trilogy.

The staff here has plenty of old-skool gaming cred and I'll throw down against anyone who wants to argue 80s and 90s video gaming anywhere, any time. You pick the time period, system, and genre, and I'll supply the vitriol. If you're gonna front, youngster, you better bring it.

Holy shit. I think I love you!

And this was by no means a shot across your, or Kyles' bow at this juncture. I meant everyone else on staff. Plus, you are new (to the Ars staff, at least), and in the fora, you are well-known

Really surprised that Dark Souls or whichever one that was stupidly hard wasn't on here. I've never understood why someone would play a game that seemed to hate the person playing it just as much as the player hated it.

I disagree. Dark Souls was never marketed as a game aimed at casual players. (See Dark Souls 2 for that, which "appeals to a larger audience")

It was made to be punishing, and to be rewarding by enabling the player to overcome every challenge it throwed at them. If you finished the game once, the second time playing it, you felt like a god.

The story was engaging. You had all the characters you became friends with *spoilers* going insane or dying, and it generally wasn't penalizing for you to let them die. However, in almost every case, you were offered a chance at saving them, albeit through a very hard challenge even by the game's standards, but you could feel very happy that your battle companion for half the game had made it through to the end. The atmosphere was a masterpiece - you were part of a world that you couldn't save from a self-destructive loop, with a wonderful soundtrack and stunning visuals.The PVP was very dynamic. You could kill your enemies in a plethora of ways, some even not being direct combat.

Your progression was not so much a level progression (which, quite frankly, is a damning standard in the game industry), but a skill progression. It was entirely possible to finish the game without leveling your character past the starting level, provided you knew what you were doing.

And that was the greatest beauty of all - learning what to do, then wondering how the game would counter that. And when it did, you'd learn again, until eventually, some point at about half the game, your instincts started serving you better, and you found you could tackle new enemies almost effortlessly (minus the bosses, whose challenges almost always were of a different nature).

In the final level, you would farm enemies that had been minibosses at the onset, not taking much less damage, but being so skilled at that point (if you managed to reach it) that they seemed like a piece of cake.

How would such atmosphere and skill progression not make for an excellent game?But, again, it's not for casuals. You either invest yourself in the game to learn it properly, or you stay away.

I am sick and tired of people beating up on Halo. For story elements ALONE Halo beats the crap out of 95% of shooters. Lackluster graphics? BS. For the time they were great and... the physics alone were great. Also... it was more finely tuned and with less clipping errors and "cruft" from other shooters of the time. You guys just love beating up on Halo but it's one of the richest scifi plotlines out there. It may borrow from some things... but hell... movies borrow from other movies. Just because it borrows doesn't take away from the fact it's got tons of great original story elements.

I find it funny you pick on Halo 1. It speaks to your ignorance of the game universe. It had the best story. Halo 4 is the first game in the series to get even close since. Halo 2's story was "ok" but Halo 3's was an unmitigated disaster.

Unfortunately, they were talking about the game as a whole, because it's 'balance' was 'too balanced'. I can see from that point of view, especially comparing to other FPS' out at the time. Being they were moddable, faster, and overall much more fluid, than the original Halo was.

More like "good games that don't match their hype or popularity in quality." Can they really be bad games if we enjoyed them so much? The article says "overrated" games, which might be fair if it didn't imply low quality throughout the article.

Though, Dragon's Lair and Wii Sports ... don't know if anyone is overrating those. They are what they are, and it's not too good.